Posted
by
samzenpus
on Thursday September 06, 2012 @11:26PM
from the learn-to-swim dept.

Titus Andronicus writes "Angela Fritz and Jeff Masters of Weather Underground analyze this year's record ongoing Arctic ice melt. Arctic sea ice extent, area, and volume are all at record lows for the post-1979 satellite era. The ice is expected to continue melting for perhaps another couple of weeks. Extreme sea ice melting might help cause greater numbers of more powerful Arctic storms, help to accelerate the melting of the Greenland ice sheet, and help to accelerate global warming itself, due to the increased absorption of solar energy into the ocean."

If you are measuring for only 35 years, a 35 year low does not mean only 35 years. It means at least 35 years.

But take a look at the data. It looks like a death spiral. The trend from the data is undeniable. Calling the current extent a record low sort of misses the point because the current amount of ice is a tiny fraction of what it was two decades ago.

If you are measuring for only 35 years, a 35 year low does not mean only 35 years. It means at least 35 years.

But take a look at the data. It looks like a death spiral. The trend from the data is undeniable. Calling the current extent a record low sort of misses the point because the current amount of ice is a tiny fraction of what it was two decades ago.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/08/new-paper-finds-deep-arctic-ocean-was.htmlNew paper finds deep Arctic Ocean from 50,000 to 11,000 years ago was 1–2C warmer than modern temperaturesA new paper published in Nature Geoscience finds "From about 50,000 to 11,000 years ago, the central Arctic Basin from 1,000 to 2,500 meters deep was... 1–2C warmer than modern Arctic Intermediate Water." This finding is particularly surprising because it occurred during the last major ice age.

In the Arctic Ocean, the cold and relatively fresh waterbeneath the sea ice is separated from the underlying warmerand saltier Atlantic Layer by a halocline. Ongoing sea iceloss and warming in the Arctic Ocean havedemonstrated the instability of the halocline, withimplications for further sea ice loss. The stability of thehalocline through past climate variations is unclear.Here we estimate intermediate water temperatures over thepast 50,000 years from the Mg/Ca and Sr/Ca values ofostracods from 31 Arctic sediment cores. From about 50 to11 [thousand years] ago, the central Arctic Basin from1,000 to 2,500m was occupied by a water mass we callGlacial Arctic Intermediate Water. This water mass was1–2C warmer than modern Arctic Intermediate Water,with temperaturespeaking during or just before millennial-scale Heinrich coldevents and the Younger Dryas cold interval. We usenumerical modelling to show that the intermediate depthwarming could result from the expected decrease in the fluxof fresh water to the Arctic Ocean during glacial conditions,which would cause the halocline to deepen and push thewarm Atlantic Layer into intermediate depths. Although notmodelled, the reduced formation of cold, deep waters due tothe exposure of the Arctic continental shelf could alsocontribute to the intermediate depth warming.

Paper finds Arctic sea ice extent 8,000 years ago was less than half of the 'record' low 2007 levelA paper published in Science finds summer Arctic Sea Ice extent during the Holocene Thermal Maximum 8,000 years ago was "less than half of the record low 2007 level." The paper finds a "general buildup of sea ice from ~ 6,000 years before the present" which reached a maximum during the Little Ice Age and "attained its present (year 2000) extent at 4,000 years before the present"

We present a sea-ice record from northern Greenland covering the past 10,000 years. Multiyear sea ice reached a minimum between ~8500 and 6000 years ago, when the limit of year-round sea ice at the coast of Greenland was located ~1000 kilometers to the north of its present position. The subsequent increase in multiyear sea ice culminated during the past 2500 years and is linked to an increase in ice export from the western Arctic and higher variability of ice-drift routes. When the ice was at its minimum in northern Greenland, it greatly increased at El

If you look at TFA, the record low that was just surpassed was set between 2006 and 2009. The records only go back to 1979, but the previous record low was not set in 1979; rather, the trend has been downwards ever since the satellite observations began.

William Ewing (Columbia Univ), back in the '50s, said that he had evidence of a 60-year freeze/thaw cycle for the Arctic Sea.
Evaporation from an ice-free Arctic Sea fed snow falls on Siberia, Canada and Greenland resulting in glaciers sending floes into the Arctic Sea.
As the Sea got covered up the evaporation slowed and so did the glaciers.
Rinse and repeat.

Just a reminder to all the "skeptics" here: There are plenty of climate markets on Intrade. If you think the anthropogenic influence is overestimated, you can make quite a bit of money betting against the prevailing opinion there.

For some reason, "alarmists" seem a lot more willing to put their money where their mouth is than "skeptics". So far, they have also won a lot more on it.

Skeptics or no skeptics, harm is still done by human activity. It's just that talk and speculation here is pointless. We can't really do much about it, when CO2 emissions exceed even pessimistic estimates, governmental decisions increase CO2 emissions, nuclear power is removed and replaced with coal power plants. In my mind, the race to limit CO2 emissions is lost, now someone had better figure out how to remove it from the atmosphere...

Take a look at this article about Germany's electricity situation. This is a country where greens have had good success with getting rid of nuclear power, and riding the Fukushima wave. They are starting 25 new coal power plants that are even hyped as "clean" (because they have "high" electrical energy efficiency of 43%).

"We usually give the Germans credit for being rational, but this coal plant will emit over one million times more carbon this year than all of their nuclear plants would have over the next 20 years, and cost over twice as much to run as any one of the them."

There is also some speculation what this rise in the cost of electricity will do to the renewable-support...

There's a farmer in Virginia who claims his permaculture techniques could sequester all the CO2 emitted by humans since the industrial revolution in less than 10 years. His name is Joel Salatin [wikipedia.org] and the technique he invented is called mob-stocking herbivorous solar conversion lignified carbon sequestration fertilization. [yesmagazine.org] In the 50 years the Salatins have been farming this way, they've added 8 inches of topsoil to their land (this is how the carbon is sequestered). Salatin is featured in Michael Pollan's book

For some reason, "alarmists" seem a lot more willing to put their money where their mouth is than "skeptics". So far, they have also won a lot more on it.

Because skeptics are um skeptical. There are many of us who don't adopt a position of belief on this subject. Its clear the climate is changing. Its also clear there is lots we don't know about how the system works, and its not entirely clear where things are headed and its even less clear that its man made.

I am not saying it is not man made. It very well might be! I don't want to put money down that its not. I also don't want to adopt economically ruinous measures; on the possibility it is. I want to let the scientists do more science. That is really not an extreme position. Especially when its already to late to fix the problem by 'controlling emissions' if our current level of understanding does turn out to be mostly correct. The focus should be on enhancing our understanding of the climate model and figuring out how we might directly and actively control it.

I also don't want to adopt economically ruinous measures; on the possibility it is.

Economic ruin due to preventing AGW is a red herring. We are not dependent on fossil fuels [hyperlogos.org], or at least we need not be. There is no need for us to be. We are told that there is in order to manipulate people into being parrots for what you are squawking. The idea that not poisoning the earth is somehow inherently tied to having a high-tech civilization is a laughable one at best, but as long as many people repeat the lie you're repeating, there's little room for laughter. Only tears now, as we poison the env

Wow. Just wow. And to buttress your argument you point to a completely speculative, disorganized, unprovenanced blog.

Go hang out on the Oil Drum [theoildrum.com] for a week to see how staggeringly incorrect you are.

Can we get off of fossil fuels without crashing civilization as we know it? That's a very interesting question. Theoretically we can. We have the technology to create energy from much safer sources. Any practical chance of this happening?

There's two basic reasons on why we are burning fossil fuels in the quantities that we do. The first is because of the physical properties of these fuels. These fossil fuels are energy dense, easy to store and transport, and can be handled safely by humans with only minor precautions.

The second reason we burn so much fossil fuels is because it is cheap. The article you link to states that we can replicate fuels with similar physical properties to fossil fuels but it says next to nothing about the cost. If the replacement fuels cost twice what the fossil fuels cost it might not mean economic ruin but it will certainly reduce our standard of living. The problem lies in that as of right now these replacement fuels don't cost twice as much but more like ten times as much.

There's another issue with bio-fuels specifically. With bio-fuels we place a very direct connection between our food and our fuel. A drought could place us in the very unfortunate position of choosing between starving to death and freezing to death. I read my history and civilizations have collapsed because of being forced into that situation.

I agree that we don't have to give up economic prosperity to avoid the burning of fossil fuels. What I disagree with is the severity of the supposed pollution that the burning of fossil fuels cause and the means by which many propose we shift away from fossil fuels to alternatives.

The only technology that we have right now that can compete with fossil fuels on cost is nuclear power. Wind power might get there as could bio-fuels and synthetic fuels given some investment in technology and infrastructure. Until we build enough windmills and nuclear power plants we are going to have to continue burning coal. If we shut off the coal power tap now we will never have enough power at a low enough cost to build that infrastructure. We can't build nuclear power plants without burning coal or erect windmills without burning diesel fuel.

People need to come to the realization that the transition away from fossil fuels is going to take decades. In the mean time, as we build these nuclear power plants, we need to keep digging up coal and drilling for natural gas. If we don't keep digging for coal then we just will not have the resources to transition to its replacement. If we don't keep digging for coal we will place ourselves in the position of choosing between starving to death or freezing to death.

The focus should be on enhancing our understanding of the climate model and figuring out how we might directly and actively control it.

Because a pound of cure is better then an ounce of prevention. Right?

Because skeptics are um skeptical. There are many of us who don't adopt a position of belief on this subject.

But those who call themselves skeptics have almost universally adopted a belief on the subject. That their 1-3 climate scientists are correct about climate science -- even thought they are creation scientists, but skeptics don't think about that.

As for those cries of economic armageddon from the ostensibly rational skeptics: they are also not founded in any reality. We have had various carbon trading and/or tax systems in place. In America. In Germany. The evidence is in, and just like the economists said, the net effect on the economy is negligible.

No it's more like, your house is 20 degrees warmer today than it was 8 months ago in the depths of winter. Clearly this is your fault and with that trend, by 2020 it will be uninhabitable! You better dedicate half your income to air conditioning so that the average temperature in the summer equals the average temperature in the winter, because you picked an arbitrary point and never want it to change from there.

Just to say up front I'm not in the skeptical camp on this, but the problem with your analogy is that it is leading and implies immediate, drastic action must be taken NOW or all is lost. It's very possible we can adapt to these changes as we focus our efforts on cleaning up our act. Technology got us into our current messes, but it can also get us out, and hobbling ourselves is not a good idea.

So maybe the house isn't really on fire yet, but you demand the fire company deluge it with water, and that destro

The real reason it's too late is that without getting China and India onboard, the best anyone can do is spit in the wind; We've already met the Kyoto Protocol objectives for the US even without ratifying the treaty,, but somehow that doesn't seem to satisfy anyone.

So, if it's happened sometime since the beginning of the planet, it's a situation we shouldn't worry about? Wrong. For the first 4 billion years, the planet was pretty primitive, and no state to support human life. In the remaining half-billion years there have been numerous extinction events [wikipedia.org].. Five of them have been labelled major extinction events where 50 to 80 percent of all macroscopic genera went extinct. If we screw up this planet sufficiently, we might well be looking at the so-called "sixth extinction" which could be worse than any of them.

No big deal? We depend on other species to get clean water and eat. Or do you think food and clean water is made in factories?

Of course, shit happens, and humanity will probably go extinct eventually. But this looks to be happening in the next century or so. Maybe you don't care whether your species outlives you, but some of do.

Humans could have no greater nor swifter impact on the CO2 balance than the evolution of white-rot fungus. That fungus ended the carboniferous era by evolving a species that could metabolize cellulose. Before then dead trees just sat until they could become coal. When this fungus evolved though, it quickly encompassed the Earth and consumed all of the cellulose available to the depths it could reach, releasing untold billions of tons of C02 and methane into the air before it ran out of readily available cellulose to consume. And that's why coal seams have well-defined borders. White-rot fungus is also why there will be no more coal. Life has found a way to prevent it.

Well great. We can assume that human beings can't affect the environment any worse than a fungus that altered that altered the ecosphere beyond all recognition. Hey, that makes me feel a lot better.

BTW, my Googling about WRF (I do thank you for telling me about it) gives me a rather more ambiguous picture than the one you offer. Most science stories describe it as "an interesting theory" but not yet universally accepted. I admit that it's a really plausible theory, but not one you can cite with such religious certainty.

Yeah, I had the same thought after a while. So rather than being limited to reversing the effects of the fungus (which themselves must have been pretty extreme) we're able to release all that carbon that's been sequestered for the last 260 billion years. Pretty nasty.

Anyway, it's all nonsense. The articles I've been reading don't say that coal formation started when trees evolved and stopped when white rot fungus came along. Coal formation started when algae first appeared and continued (with various breaks

I work on coal-bearing forests in the Carboniferous (yeah, yeah, saying "in" is standard geology terminology -- I don't *actually* have a time machine), and this is the first I've heard of any type of fungus being responsible for that much change. There is a big change globally in climate as you go from the Carboniferous Period (named such because of the abundance of coal) into the Permian Period. The climate generally becomes more arid. But this is thought to be related to the development of Pangaea and the whole-hemisphere ocean on the other side of it, Panthalassa, not some transformation of forest terrains due to evolution of a new fungus. For that matter, there *are* coals in the Permian, but they are located in places such as India and Australia that people may not be as familiar with. There is also plenty of coal in rocks of all ages from the Carboniferous onward, although it's global abundance does wax and wane with global climate. For example, coal is particularly abundant in the Cretaceous Period and in the Eocene, both times of "greenhouse" conditions. It's less common in, say, the Triassic, which like the Permian has more widespread arid conditions (Pangaea was still breaking up). Coal is forming today as peat in many parts of the world. I have no doubt that the evolution of fungus that could metabolize cellulose was an important event, but it did not result in the end of coal.

That is the problem. Everyone wants *everyone else* to deal with. As long as they can still drive to work with cheap gas and get a shiny new smart phone every year, its clearly other peoples real problem... if only they would deal with it right?

Please tell me your joking right? You seriously think one party out of 2 is going to better than the other? Governments see one thing with AGW comes up... new tax revenue opportunities. And that has nothing to do with real solutions.

Pro tip with real stuff... its not summed up with 2 view partisan politics.

The data we have from ice cores goes back at least 250,000 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core), what you're talking about is satellite mapping of the sea ice extent. For the record, the ice in Greenland is at least 110,000 year old (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet), so, uh.... go peddle your FUD somewhere else coward.

As a side note from just across the strait here in Iceland, it's been abnormally warm this summer. Was kind of shocking, the peak of Snæfellsjökull (visible from Reykjavík on a clear day) showed through the ice cap. It's never happened before in recorded history. I mean, it was one thing when Iceland got a new tallest waterfall because of the retreating glaciers in Skaftafell, but to see a mountain whose name literally translates as "Snow Mountain" lose so much that its peak became visible... they're saying that at the current rate it's losing ice, the entire glacier will be gone in 20-30 years, and all of Iceland's glaciers in 150-200 years. Just crazy when you think about it, given that one of Iceland's glaciers alone is the largest in Europe by volume and takes up nearly 10% of the country.

As a side note from just across the strait here in Iceland, it's been abnormally warm this summer. Was kind of shocking, the peak of Snæfellsjökull (visible from Reykjavík on a clear day) showed through the ice cap. It's never happened before in recorded history. I mean, it was one thing when Iceland got a new tallest waterfall because of the retreating glaciers in Skaftafell, but to see a mountain whose name literally translates as "Snow Mountain" lose so much that its peak became visible... they're saying that at the current rate it's losing ice, the entire glacier will be gone in 20-30 years, and all of Iceland's glaciers in 150-200 years. Just crazy when you think about it, given that one of Iceland's glaciers alone is the largest in Europe by volume and takes up nearly 10% of the country.

I went mountain climbing in Ecuador a few years ago and it was the same story there too. We had to go almost 1k higher in order to find the glacier than we should have. The mountains we climbed have always been permanent snow covered peaks according to local custom but are looking like they will be bear rock within a decade if the current temperatures continue.

It is really bizarre walking on rocks that have been covered by glazier for thousands of years. They have a texture like a stony beach but instead of

Yep, despite what the psuedo-skeptics would have you believe the IPCC is actually very conservative with it's claims. Which is precisely what you would expect when trying to get a large number of experts to agree on a statement. Another point to note is that not a single one of the 2-3,000 scientists get a dime for their work from the IPCC. The organization has $5-6 million budget which comes from donations by over 120 different nations representing ALL the colours of the political rainbow. Most of that is spent on airfares and conference rooms and the accounts are available for inspection on their web site.

The incredibly robust review process of the IPCC should be held up as an outstanding example of how science should inform policy. The partially successful assassination of it's character by Luddites in the coal industry should be held up as an outstanding example of how easy it is convince people to work against their own best interest with nothing more than cheap, transparent, propaganda.

This wasn't caused by one storm. There are nearly two million square kilometers of open water where there was sea ice a few decades ago, and that understates the problem because the ice is getting thinner by a bigger percentage than the extent is shrinking.

Yup, that's where the natural variability part comes in. The storm broke up some of the ice but it was already set up to be easily broken. That same storm in 1979 wouldn't have had nearly the same effect because the ice was much thicker back then.

This is not the first time climatic [foxnews.com] change [sunysuffolk.edu]has had profound effects on the human race.

There will be "Population Adjustments" in the future regardless of what measures we take now. The earth can only support so many of us.

Our increasing population [arewetoast.com] has been cited by some to be the cause of climate change. I think they may well be inter-connected.

Let's face it, if the uber-hard-core folks had their way, we would be living a lifestyle from the 1700s. No electricity, no cars, no burning massive amount of fossil fuels. There would be no global economy because there would be no global transportation network. In fact our population would not only have to redistribute out of the urban centres, it would have to suffer a major reduction in numbers. Without modern farming techniques, you can only feed so many mouths.

However you slice it, there will be fewer people on the planet in the future, and it won't be a pleasant transition.

What do you mean it's a myth? Overpopulation is an observable phenomenon in almost every form of life, from yeast dying in their own alcohol to deer starving when they lack natural predators.

The only difference is that humanity has found ways using technology to push back the population ceiling (which is mainly determined by food production). Eventually, and this is a certainty, we will not be able to produce any more food on Earth.... or some massive storm and/or drought will cause widespread crop failure. This will result in starvation, and will be a natural check on the human population.

Saying the earth can only support so many of us is an absolute fact. Now, that number might be far, far larger than we currently believe, but that there is an absolute ceiling is without doubt. One absolute ceiling for the population of the earth would be the amount of energy arriving from the sun divided by the amount of energy consumed by a person. Of course, that would mean no energy was being used by anything else on the planet, so it is impossibly high, but it's just to prove a point.

No, it's a fact. Each of us requires a certain amount of space and it takes a certain amount of space to feed us. We might be nowhere near that limit, but the limit varies with technology and society (how little space members of a given society can live in before they go crazy and start doing bad things because of it, and how much space it takes to produce their food.)

The question, much like the actual question in the issue of AGW, is what that carrying capacity actually is at any given time. I suspect we a

As the Arctic Ocean summer ice declines there is developing evidence it is having an effect on the northern polar jet stream, slowing it down and causing the meanders to get larger. This has the effect of bringing colder weather further south and warmer weather further north and slowing down the speed at which the weather moves through. That would explain why a few years ago when Florida was having freezing weather Greenland was practically balmy.

As earth heats up, cooling mechanisms should increase. It's not instantaneous of course. Until the cooling mechanisms outpace the heating mechanisms, ice is going to keep melting year after year. The speed ice melts probably has more to do with surface area, ice depth, and cloud cover more than ambient temperature.

And which cooling mechanisms are these? According to TFA, melting the polar icecap actually removes an important cooling mechanism. Other mechanisms, such as the ocean's ability to abosrb CO2, are pretty much maxed out. Do you have a planet size air conditioner nobody else knows about?

Given that we're on track to end 2.4 million years of northern hemisphere glaciers and given that we know the gross mechanisms that are changing the climate, and we know those mechanisms are being activated by human activity, and given that we know the natural trend was going in the opposite direction until human activity overwhelmed it, it seems highly unlikely that it's "a natural cycle".

There is natural variability but proxy studies of long term sea ice show it's been at least around 8,000 years since sea ice has been this low and more likely over 100,000 years during the last interglacial.

The Sun has been through three 11 year cycles since the first satellite went up in 1979 and there's not much correlation between it and sea ice in the record. Volcanoes would normally have a cooling effect and I'm not aware that there has been a significant increase in volcanic activity anyway.

If you look at the IPCC report (wg1 chapter 2 page 136 although it's already starting to get a bit old), there is still a (minimal) chance that none of it is caused by CO2, because human release of aerosols cause a cooling effect. Of course there are other considerations like methane, etc. Most scientific organizations say things like, "most of the warming we've seen is caused by humans....." Although 'most' is a wiggle word that accurately represents our uncertainty on the matter.

It's also helps to take this into perspective, look at this graph [uaf.edu], you'll see that we keep talking about the summer extent; the winter extent hasn't changed much. The past year was right up there with 1990s average. And the annual change is dramatically larger than the change in either the summer extent or the winter extent. Also, it is arguably more important to measure the thickness of the ice, rather than the extent, but a falling summer extent might suggest the thickness is shrinking as well. We are measuring that now, but only for a few years.

Aerosols do cause a cooling effect but some of them, in particular carbon black [wikipedia.org] can increase the melting of ice when it settles on it.

Winter extent doesn't change much in the Arctic Ocean because it's constrained by the land around it. The only places it can grow out further is in the Bering Sea and between North America, Greenland and Europe. In contrast the sea ice around Antarctica melts nearly completely every year and reforms the again next year. It doesn't have the opportunity to build up the thick multi-year ice that exists (but not for much longer) in the Arctic Ocean. The difference between an ocean surrounded by land and land surrounded by ocean at the poles.

Of course the Earth is rotating from Alaska toward Greenland, the same way the storm is spinning.

If you look at the IPCC report (wg1 chapter 2 page 136 although it's already starting to get a bit old), there is still a (minimal) chance that none of it is caused by CO2, because human release of aerosols cause a cooling effect. Of course there are other considerations like methane, etc. Most scientific organizations say things like, "most of the warming we've seen is caused by humans....." Although 'most' is a wiggle word that accurately represents our uncertainty on the matter.

Most climatologists, 97%, agree with AGW. An indication that "most" can have a measurable meaning. Of course like all measurements, it comes with an error rate or wiggle room. If you want to believe in all the minimal chances of things, buy a lottery ticket--just one should be enough.

This is really a meaningless statement, because "agreeing with AGW" can mean things as diverse as "minimal warming affect" and "HUMANITY WILL SUFFER HORRIFIC CONSEQUENCES!!" Any survey I've seen of climatologists asks questions closer to the "minimal warming affect" end of the scale.

Sorry, but AGW is a physical, observable phenomenom, not a prediction of it's possible consequences. Please do try to keep the two as separate issues, otherwise there's a chance that you reject the observation because you don't like one possible consequence prediction...
Or in other words, the 97% agree that AGW is the best explanation for the atmospheric observations scientists have made since the end of the 19th century. 3% disagree, but can't offer any other framework that explains all observations, or can make predictions.

Well the problem with AGW in a nutshell is we are given NO options other than do nothing or carbon credits, which considering the ones that came up with credit default swaps [nakedcapitalism.com] or the ones writing the rules on carbon credits and cap & trade? uhhh...I think if that is the only choices i'll choose do nothing, thanks anyway.

The bitch is there are thing we can do WITHOUT using crap and trade that could make a difference, but because people like Al Gore, who just FYI has set himself up to be a a carbon billiona [telegraph.co.uk]

I don't get this obsession with Al Gore. He's like a spokesmodel for global warming. Bypass him and go directly to the source. If you're making your decisions about the validity of global warming based on personal animosity you're doing it wrong.

Per Capita (which is the graph he links to) shows the US trending down, and China trending up. That's nice, but considering that China has a population of around 1.3 billion versus the US population of around 305 million, even a moderate trend upwards has to be multiplied by over 4.

All of the other CO2 graphs show that China has put out more pollution than the US for a very long time. However 3 of them show that like the US, China too has been reducing their pollution as we

(I'm thinking of the sun's 11-year cycle and the recent larger-than-normal volcano activity)

Well, some say that the recent larger-than-normal volcano activity may be an effect [telegraph.co.uk] rather than a cause (or, anyway, contribute in a positive feedback to GW).And it's possible they are right [wikipedia.org].

We went from 1.6 billion people to 6, we altered the environment on an unseen before scale, we began mass producing and dumping waste at a pace that couldn't have possibly be without consequence.

Referring strictly to CO2, the levels we have now haven't been seen in at least 650.000 years and that's without considering other gases which are mostly man made (they occur rarely or not at all in nature).

30 second research and google would have told you this has been eliminated as explanation , what, a million time now ? Even in year of big eruption volcano don't even scratch the quantity CO2 we emit as human. As for sun it has so long been eliminated. Why do people ask question which are easily answered by a cursory google search (and I am not even speaking of reading peer reviewed article linked as primary source in case one don't trust real climate or whatever).

If we are talking since 1900, none of it according to the best models, if anything the globe would have very slightly cooled. The official IPCC position is more conservative and simply states that "most" of the observed warming is due to our activity (it's the second point in the much maligned 3 point scientific consensus [wikipedia.org])

rant/
A good place to start looking for more detailed answers on sun cycles and volcanos is here [skepticalscience.com], and the youtube channel "climate crock of the week" is also a good place to visit for quality investigative journalism on the subject, (warning it includes strong British sarcasm). But for god's sake don't take my word for it, trusting a single source in the minefield of disinformation on climate science is quite likely to be fatal to your understanding of the issue. WP (or any other reputable encyclopedia) is also a good place to start, and it's hard to go past realclimate.org, it's run by Michael Mann (the hockey stick guy) and features articles and commentary by some of the world's leading climatologists. sourcewatch.org also has an extensive database of front groups, shills and lobbyists who publish climate misinformation, making it relatively simple for a genuine skeptic to work out who is bullshitting them and why. Make no mistake, if your interested in truth these "lobbyists" are your enemy, they will attempt to recruit you into the dwindling ranks of their army of useful idiots [wikipedia.org] they have extensive propoganda experience that has been refined since the days the same people were paid to disrcedit medical science that said smoking causes cancer, somewhat surprisingly such expertise is cheap, (as well as fucking nasty).
/rant

Disclaimer: Unlike the so called "climate change skeptics" I want you to be skeptical of what I say and who I recommend. I've been following the science as an interested layman now for 30yrs, I want you to constructively attack the evidence I'm leaning on [www.ipcc.ch] because (as a grandfather of three) the issue is way too important to allow the mediocrity you speak of in your sig to waste time and sow doubt amongst the uninformed.

A final bit of good faith advice (Aussie style) - Do you fucking homework mate, your ignorance.is your enemy's most effective weapon.

The Earth has not been warming at the rate of 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade since the last ice age. The RATE of warming has increased dramatically in the past several decades. We're not "forgetting" at all. We're taking into account more data than you are.

ah, but that's just it. Clinton's behavior allowed Bush to do as well as he did. If Bush hadn't ridden the anti-Clinton wave, and hence the anti-Democrat wave, his showing would have been so abysmal as to preclude any judicial interference.

If we need to start blaming someone, blame the American people. They are dumb as shit and they elect idiots who don't give a shit about the planet. Given a choice between cheap gas for the SUV or a future for their grandchildren, what do you think they will pick?

Yeah, we shouldn't give that stupid electorate a chance to interfere with what we say is right, and....

Well we've finally done it. We are obviously headed toward a new ice age. We've hit an "all time coldest day" today as far back as I can remember the daily temps (today and yesterday). Everyone run out and buy winter gear (soon as I buy some stock in winter gear companies first thing tomorrow morning!). So run out and stock up (but wait until atleast 10am, thanks!).

It's nowhere near as good as satellite data, but we can infer data about past Arctic ice from geological observations.

It's important because it's not just an effect, it's a cause. Arctic ice levels affect climate patterns.

Pointing out that the climate has changed in the past does dispose of the idiots saying "Save the planet!", because the planet will be just fine. It does, however, hide the issue that matters to a lot of humans, which is whether we can still grow enough food for seven billion of us and con

All of us, sooner or later.A couple billion prematurely, mostly children and elderly.Remember world population is going to be significantly lower than today by the end of the century. There are two main ways to achieve that: war and famine.

Yeah, what's the big deal anyway? So some millions of people will die, and some billions will starve. Cap it with couple of nuclear wars because India and China will need to invade neighbours in the midst of rice riots. Some cities wiped by severe storms (those seem to be on the rise with warming). Maldives go underwater. All of this because oil and coal companies must maximise their profits no matter what, and so do politicians. I assume you have a nice bunker somewhere high above the sea level with enough

Right, just ignore the obvious downward trend for the previous 30 years on the graph; go ahead and cherry-pick your data so you can declare a 5 year upward trend! It's all so much simpler when you sweep things under the Seasonal Variability rug, isn't it?

Ever heard of the "Escalator Graph" [skepticalscience.com]? Yes, that's what you just did.

Weeds grow better with increased CO2 concentration than food-plants. Not all plants are food, Humans don't like weeds.

Food-plants grown under increased CO2 show decreased nutritional value per weight, so even if you get more growth, the end result is less nutritious...

In the real world of plant-growing, CO2 is rarely the limiting factor, usually water, nitrogen or soil-minerals are the limiting factor. Increased CO2 leads to increased temperature, often leading to increased drought during the growing season

The real indicator is the graph I posted. The red line does not deviate much at all from green line, when it is about the blue line (freezing point) As the graph is measuring atmospheric temperature, one can only conclude that the record low is not air temperature driven, which is the crux of the anthropogenic global warming argument.